I was ruminating in my cellar and found a case of wine I hadn't realized I had bought. Actually, I knew I'd bought the case, but I'd recalled that it was a 1990, like the other one I bought at the same time. Instead, it turns out that it is the 1988 Inglenook "Private Reserve" Cabernet. Trader Joe's was blowing this stuff out several years ago (last millennium?) for $6/bottle IIRC, so I jumped on a couple of cases. How bad could a $6/btl Napa Valley "Reserve" Cabernet be?
On tasting the 1990, I discovered how lackluster such a wine could be. Although it didn't have any technical faults, it didn't seem to have much fruit either. I used most of it for marinade and quaffing.
With some trepidation, I opened a bottle of the newly "found" 1988. The nose was rather pleasant, and had that unmistakeable character that only comes with bottle age. On the palate, however, the wine was sour and not terribly pleasant. I decided to leave it alone for awhile in a decanter while I was doing other things.
When I returned to it an hour or so later, it had warmed a bit and opened up into a completely different experience. The acidic quality had faded substantially, and the palate was more in line with the promise of the nose. Altogether, it was a _very_ pleasant wine - especially for $6! I'm so glad I have another 11 bottles. :^)
Conventional wisdom says that older wines should be decanted and drunk without much delay. Of course conventional wisdom also says that California wines typically don't age very well. I've never bought that last assertion, but had thought the former was pretty much dogma. Apparently there are exceptions to that too.
Tom S